stock price broken

[brad]

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 10:53 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> brad <bradhaack at fastmail.us> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 10:24 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> >> brad <bradhaack at fastmail.us> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Tried this again and same answer.  Like I said last week, I reverted to
> >> > 2.2.9 and an older file and recovered.  
> >> >
> >> > Today, I removed gnucash and gnucash-common using synaptic package
> >> > manager.  I followed the wiki build instructions explicitly and built
> >> > the latest unstable release.  (John, no I didn't use the -rpath arg,
> >> > didn't think I needed it since I removed the old version, and wasn't
> >> > sure which cmd (configure or make) it was supposed to go w).  Started it
> >> > up and see the same problem.   
> >> >
> >> > Next I installed the stable version, 2.4.0 from getdeb.net.  Same thing.
> >> >
> >> > To reiterate:
> >> >
> >> > Transactions that were OK are now unbalanced 
> >> > Example, from transaction register showing split
> >> > 1st split line, stockAcct  shares=10 Price=1 buy=10
> >> > 2nd line:       fundingAcct sell=100
> >> > 3rd line: nothing in the Account field,  price=1, Buy=90
> >> 
> >> Yes, this is an imbalanced transaction.  In the 1st split you're saying
> >> that you're buying 10 shares for $1 each (for a total buy-in of $10),
> >> but in the 2nd split you're saying that you're funding the account with
> >> $100.  So yes, you absolutely have an imbalance of $90.
> >> 
> >> > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> >> > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
> >> 
> >> -derek
> >> 
> > Derek,  This email was part of a longer thread that got snipped. Yes I
> > know it's imbalanced.  The point is that it wasn't imbalanced before I
> > upgraded and the imbalances (not just this one) just magically showed up
> > when I upgraded.  Also the price cannot be edited.  I'll see if I can
> > create a simple example file and file a bug report.
> 
> Check the commodity of the stock account?
> 
> -derek
> 
That's one of the 1st things I checked, & it is using the correct
security.